Roger Marquis wrote:
If this were really an issue I'd expect my nieces and nephews, all of
whom are big
game players, would have mentioned it. They haven't though, despite
being behind
cheap NATing CPE from D-Link and Netgear.
Disable the uPNP (some routers lack it, and yes, it breaks and microsoft
will tell you to get uPNP capable NAT routers or get a new ISP).
uPNP at a larger scale? Would require some serious security and
scalability analysis.
Arguments against NAT uniformly fail to give credit to these security
considerations,
Your argument has nothing to do with this part of the thread and
discussion of why implementing NAT at a larger scale is bad. I guess it
might have something to do in other tangents of supporting NAT66.
Jack